By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - FIFA 18 on Switch accounted for 1% of all UK physical copies sold

GoOnKid on 06 October 2017
DonFerrari said:
GoOnKid said:

Boy, the trailer exists on the Playstore. I wrote that a couple of hours ago and you even responded to that! There's no reason to differentiate a trailer among platforms. They could just upload this thing in the eshop. And yet they simply didn't. What's your excuse? Why do you even feel the need to white knight EA?

So they putting the same trailer of Playstation on Switch would work? We wouldn't have any Switch user then claiming false advertisment?

RolStoppable said:

The norm is that Nintendo is not responsible for the markting of third party games, so it's said person who would have to provide evidence that Nintendo is responsible in the case of FIFA 18.

Outside of their store I wouldn't have no question, inside their store I don't know, but accept that it's possible that the norm would be the publisher. But we would have to look at who said it here and ask for the evidence.

Or just assume EA thought the expense wouldn't be justified for some reason only they could know for sure.

Forget about it, you're a lost cause. You don't even want to understand the point.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 06 October 2017
GoOnKid said:
DonFerrari said:

So they putting the same trailer of Playstation on Switch would work? We wouldn't have any Switch user then claiming false advertisment?

Outside of their store I wouldn't have no question, inside their store I don't know, but accept that it's possible that the norm would be the publisher. But we would have to look at who said it here and ask for the evidence.

Or just assume EA thought the expense wouldn't be justified for some reason only they could know for sure.

Forget about it, you're a lost cause. You don't even want to understand the point.

Yes, perhaps I'm too dumb to understand that EA self-sabotage is the only possibility.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

GhaudePhaede010 on 06 October 2017

No matter how much evidence comes up that EA may not have wanted this game to succeed, there will be conspiracy theorist that excuse EA's current efforts. There is nothing we can do but speculate. It is absolutely stupid that people can say one side is ridiculous while having just as flimsy evidence on the other side.

I see that the game sold better in Japan, without selling out, than it did in the UK where it did sell out. Are we honestly saying EA expected it to sell better in Japan than in the UK? I would assume people here will say yes because EA would never sabotage a game they may have never wanted to make but were contractually obligated to produce. No, of course not. The only logical explanation for their lack of advertising, under shipping to the game's strongest market, taking an excessively long time to restock the game, lying about missing features and lying about the reasons for the features that they did say were missing (frostbite related), is that they clearly wanted this game to be a massive success. It is clear when you look at the facts. EA is clearly giving this title everything they can to make it a success. What in the world are we thinking to even suggest EA could have done more, or better, or been more transparent, or made the game more available, or made it more available in a fashion that may suggest they care about the game's success? How dare us think all of those bad business practices may affect business or even seem to suggest self-sabotage! I mean, obviously, they are giving everything they have to ensuring this game is a massive success. And their decisions have been sound and intelligent along the way promoting great business and massive profit. Anyone that thinks otherwise or questions EA's business decisions is a conspiracy theorist or even a troll.

Did I do it right?



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

DonFerrari on 06 October 2017
GhaudePhaede010 said:
No matter how much evidence comes up that EA may not have wanted this game to succeed, there will be conspiracy theorist that excuse EA's current efforts. There is nothing we can do but speculate. It is absolutely stupid that people can say one side is ridiculous while having just as flimsy evidence on the other side.

I see that the game sold better in Japan, without selling out, than it did in the UK where it did sell out. Are we honestly saying EA expected it to sell better in Japan than in the UK? I would assume people here will say yes because EA would never sabotage a game they may have never wanted to make but were contractually obligated to produce. No, of course not. The only logical explanation for their lack of advertising, under shipping to the game's strongest market, taking an excessively long time to restock the game, lying about missing features and lying about the reasons for the features that they did say were missing (frostbite related), is that they clearly wanted this game to be a massive success. It is clear when you look at the facts. EA is clearly giving this title everything they can to make it a success. What in the world are we thinking to even suggest EA could have done more, or better, or been more transparent, or made the game more available, or made it more available in a fashion that may suggest they care about the game's success? How dare us think all of those bad business practices may affect business or even seem to suggest self-sabotage! I mean, obviously, they are giving everything they have to ensuring this game is a massive success. And their decisions have been sound and intelligent along the way promoting great business and massive profit. Anyone that thinks otherwise or questions EA's business decisions is a conspiracy theorist or even a troll.

Did I do it right?

being able to do better =/= intentional self sabotage.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

GhaudePhaede010 on 06 October 2017
DonFerrari said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:
No matter how much evidence comes up that EA may not have wanted this game to succeed, there will be conspiracy theorist that excuse EA's current efforts. There is nothing we can do but speculate. It is absolutely stupid that people can say one side is ridiculous while having just as flimsy evidence on the other side.

I see that the game sold better in Japan, without selling out, than it did in the UK where it did sell out. Are we honestly saying EA expected it to sell better in Japan than in the UK? I would assume people here will say yes because EA would never sabotage a game they may have never wanted to make but were contractually obligated to produce. No, of course not. The only logical explanation for their lack of advertising, under shipping to the game's strongest market, taking an excessively long time to restock the game, lying about missing features and lying about the reasons for the features that they did say were missing (frostbite related), is that they clearly wanted this game to be a massive success. It is clear when you look at the facts. EA is clearly giving this title everything they can to make it a success. What in the world are we thinking to even suggest EA could have done more, or better, or been more transparent, or made the game more available, or made it more available in a fashion that may suggest they care about the game's success? How dare us think all of those bad business practices may affect business or even seem to suggest self-sabotage! I mean, obviously, they are giving everything they have to ensuring this game is a massive success. And their decisions have been sound and intelligent along the way promoting great business and massive profit. Anyone that thinks otherwise or questions EA's business decisions is a conspiracy theorist or even a troll.

Did I do it right?

being able to do better =/= intentional self sabotage.

What kind of sabotage is it? This is EA... a company that should know how to do it right. And you keep giving them the benefit of the doubt, right? Why? If they are so smart and looking for profit, how can people on a message board, yourself included, see these monsterous and glaring issues and think nothing of it. Either EA as a company are dumb as fuck seven times over or they are self sabotaging (you could still argue that being dumb as fuck is unintentional self sabotage but I digress...). I honestly think (due to their marketing and sales of other titles) EA are not stupid so that leaves me with the conclusion that they do not care or that they want this game to underperform (see: self sabotage).

Again, I am a rational man. I have read every reply and I have yet to see anything that provokes me to think EA is somehow not self sabotaging. However, you have to admit at this point that your position is just as weak as your opposition. Therefore, condescending the opposition can be seen as hypocrisy.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

Around the Network
DonFerrari on 06 October 2017
GhaudePhaede010 said:
DonFerrari said:

being able to do better =/= intentional self sabotage.

What kind of sabotage is it? This is EA... a company that should know how to do it right. And you keep giving them the benefit of the doubt, right? Why? If they are so smart and looking for profit, how can people on a message board, yourself included, see these monsterous and glaring issues and think nothing of it. Either EA as a company are dumb as fuck seven times over or they are self sabotaging (you could still argue that being dumb as fuck is unintentional self sabotage but I digress...). I honestly think (due to their marketing and sales of other titles) EA are not stupid so that leaves me with the conclusion that they do not care or that they want this game to underperform (see: self sabotage).

Again, I am a rational man. I have read every reply and I have yet to see anything that provokes me to think EA is somehow not self sabotaging. However, you have to admit at this point that your position is just as weak as your opposition. Therefore, condescending the opposition can be seen as hypocrisy.

Have you ever heard of cost of opportunity and ROI? A version that do only 1% of the market can very well be a version that isn't much attractive and as well doesn't deserve much attention.

EA not being stupid and Nintendo 3rd party games usually failing is were you can see why they would invest little.

Nope I'm not positioning me weakly, just considering you are looking at the point on a too emotive position.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Kerotan on 06 October 2017
Chrizum said:
Kerotan said:

It's no different to football fans arguing about their football teams. It's just human nature to fight like this. 

There's a huge difference imo: football fans confront eachother in real life. I've never seen a console war being fought face to face. Although that would be something I'd like to see!

Some football fans confront eachother in real life and others online.  

 

I've also seen many people argue in real life over which consoles are better. 



chakkra on 06 October 2017

Wow!  this thread...    damn...   LOL

Now guys, this is just ONE COUNTRY.  Don't you guys think that it would be wise to wait a little bit longer to see how it does in the rest of the world before throwing all of these theories around?  Because you know, all these theories will go to waste if it end up doing not as bad as you all think it did.

Now, my take on this all EA self-sabotaging thing:

Errr...   Acording to VGC numbers, FIFA 15 FW on 3DS sold 892 copies (EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINETY TWO COPIES!) and FIFA 13 on Wii U sold 870 copies.  Now, given this history, why is it so hard to imagine that any company would prefer to play safe when deciding how many copies to print for each market?  In fact, I'm actually really surprised to see that they decided to print more than 8,000 units for UK alone (which is TEN TIMES more than their previous interactions did).

So..  yeah..



darkenergy on 07 October 2017

If this was the usual GFK charts that was always posted almost every week then the replies of this thread would impress me.



Proud to be a Californian.

KrspaceT on 07 October 2017

No word on FIFA sales yet officially?



The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?